Assessing Clinical Governance Awareness and Implementation Among Healthcare Professionals in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abdulaziz Rashed Alsaedi,1 Maisam Elfaki Haddad,2 Safaa Eid Alshelaly,3 Manal Mohammed Alsadei,3 Abdulaziz Jameel Alharbi,3 Abdullah Ahmad Alkhurais,4 Fahad Rashid Almajnoni,2 Nada Abdullah Alneami2 1College of Management, Midocean University, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates; 2Medical Serviced Division, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, National Guard Health Affairs, Madinah, Saudi Arabia; 3King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Medical City, Health Holding Company, Madinah, Saudi Arabia; 4Quality and Patient Safety Department, Aseer Central Hospital, Health Holding Company, Aseer, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Abdulaziz Rashed Alsaedi, Midocean University Executive Branch: 28 Trading office, Block-c, Phasse-11, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, Tel +966504352520, Email [email protected]: Clinical governance has been developed as a comprehensive approach to enhance the quality of care. As a new methodology, clinical governance is increasingly adopted by Saudi Arabian hospitals.Objective: This study aims to assess the awareness level of clinical governance among healthcare professionals in King Salman Medical City, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey study that used a proportionate stratified sampling technique from July to October 2024. Data collection was done using a pre-developed questionnaire involving 65 items, measuring healthcare professionals’ awareness of the seven domains of clinical governance. Descriptive analysis was employed using frequencies, means, and standard deviation. Meanwhile, the one-way t-test and one-way ANOVA were used in the inferential analysis.Results: A total of 403 professionals responded to the survey with a response rate of 58%. Quantitative analysis revealed a notably high level of clinical governance implementation across all assessed areas in the hospital. Public and patient involvement stands out as the strongest area, with a mean difference of 0.846 and a t-value of 22.400, while risk management has a relatively lower mean difference of 0.578 with a t-value of 13.549. The descriptive statistics for public and patient involvement reveal slight variations in perceptions of involvement across different staff roles in the hospital. Doctors report the highest mean involvement level at 3.96 (SD = 0.74), with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 3.80 to 4.12. Laboratory specialists have the lowest mean at 3.60, with the largest variability (SD = 1.20), and their confidence interval (2.80 to 4.41) is wider.Conclusion: The study revealed a strong foundation in patient engagement, audit processes, and data management. Decision-makers need to encourage the culture of risk management and clinical effectiveness. Future researchers might shed light on the impact of clinical governance on patients’ outcomes.Keywords: clinical governance, quality of care, healthcare, patient safety, clinical audit, risk management